Though on another note, it's good to not be blind to what they're printing. On this issue, we should let the FBI and other agencies do their jobs, at this point it's all speculation. Unless you go through her emails via wikileaks and draw your own conclusions (still focusing on the campaign is more important).

to Hillary.

We should be about electing Dems in November not tearing them down!

And you should as well. If you don't, that's on you. This is of great concern to me, and what happens should she get in office. Particularly in regards to the Clinton Foundation. Even more so now that it's come to light they have been receiving money from foreign countries that may have influenced her decision making while SoS (i.e. Saudi Arabia).

because you disagree with their ideology.

Their raison d'etre is to destroy our party even if they lack the courage or candor to say so explicitly.

Bill and Hillary and Chelsea have done more good for people than anyone you can name!

I was blind to the way the Clintons did business up until the 2008 election. it was then that I saw the racist, scorched earth, win at all costs campaign that they ran against Barack. I think the Clintons feel they are above the law and they can do whatever they want, but their flaws will either catch up with them now, or in the GE and it will be their downfall.

a while to wise up to her.

1. Emails showing linkage between Clinton Foundation and Mid East arms deals
2. Bankruptcy bill flip flop after receiving donations
3. Colombia Free Trade Agreement secret lobbying
4. Wall St speaking fees and donations without releasing transcripts

It goes on and on, but you'll just deflect and say "right wing smear" or "But [Insert Name] did it too!" or something like all that.

After all one of them might become the president and we want a good one, not a crooked one.

This election is too important to bet she won't get indicted or impeached. You may want to make that bet, but we don't.

Isn't that equally important?

It's all they got.

Judicial Watch was an independent group, it only adds to the RW conspiracy theory.

The sign on the door says DEMOCRATIC underground

But if there is relative information it shouldn't be dismissed out right.

It's right wing bull shit and taking advantage of it is not an honorable thing to do

You can say what you want about the RW you'd probably be right but some of those emails aren't good.

There was nothing illegal done

There were no classified emails when sent or received

This is just another Hillary hit piece and to use it is not honorable.

Just as dragging out Benghazi and travelgate and Whitewater and Vince Foster

I'm not going to say if she's guilty as I obviously can't say that but.

There are some emails that were in fact classified at the time sent. If you understand the coding when documents are first classified you'd see that some were born classified. I'm not going to go to deep into it but it's the Declassify date codes. Some are exactly 10 years after the date the emails are sent and those are the ones born classified. Others are scheduled to be declassified 10 years after the classification process and those are the truly retroactive emails.

Also you will never hear me talk bad about Hillary in regards to benghazi or the others you listed.

You need more than that.

for a possible law breaker.

JW, Wikileaks, NYT - it doesn't matter who reports it, if you are reading source material from her own emails. You can't excuse what she did, because you don't like who pointed the spotlight.

Thanks for the thread, w4rma.

between government and pro-corporate lobbying -- by just combining the two while still in office!!!

She truly is a progressive.

"I don't buy that Hillary actually bit the head off that live kitten. It's probably some RW'er using CGI!"

"Um...you just saw it in person...we're at a rally."

"YOU MUST BE KARL ROVE!!!"

the RW is to blame. They made her do it.

Hillary IS Right-Wing!

I don't think that is what this investigation is about. Although laws may have been broken on classification, I don't think they would have 150 FBI agents looking at just that. I think the MAIN issue is the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play set up--that is, what Clinton what using her private server FOR.

If they find classification errors or security issues, what they will likely do is go after Clinton's aides, to pressure them for more information on the main issue: using a high government office for personal gain, in the billions of dollars (and from some of the worst scumbags on earth, like the Saudis).

For those Clinton supporters who castigate others for a failure of loyalty to President Obama, consider this: Obama banned Clinton advocate Sydney Blumenthal from his administration. Told Clinton he didn't want Blumenthal in the State Department. The Clinton Foundation then hired Blumenthal (big salary)--a foundation that was getting billions of dollars from foreign sources--and Clinton communicated with Blumenthal on foreign policy matters using her private server. What kind of loyalty did this show to Obama? None at all. She was trying to deceive him.

I have some pretty solid reasons for believing that Obama is angry at Clinton, even apart from the above: mainly,

1) Her support of the fascist coup in Honduras (only 6 months into his first term, when he was preoccupied with global financial meltdown and 2 wars), which totally fucked up his goal of improving relations with Latin America. Latin American governments were universally furious about the Honduran coup, and blame the U.S. for it. Obama and Kerry are now trying to repair the damage Clinton did--with Obama's visit to Cuba and Obama/Kerry's support for the Colombia/FARC peace talks. Both issues--U.S. non-recognition of Cuba and U.S. fueling of the Colombia civil war and putting U.S. military bases in Colombia--are also very big issues in LatAm, though we don't hear much about it here; and

2) Destabilization of Libya and Syria. It is largely HER mess, resulting in the barbaric 'Islamic state' (much like Honduras is HER mess, resulting in rampant RW death squads who just murdered the winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize, Berta Caceres, an Indigenous woman and anti-coup activist, and have murdered, raped, beaten and imprisoned thousands of others, most often women and gays). Obama and Kerry have been working to overcome the damage Clinton is responsible for in the ME (as they are doing in Latin America).

It is VERY DIFFICULT to know what is really going on in our government. So I think it is also POSSIBLE that the FBI investigation is a means of protecting Clinton (and the Obama administration?) from the RW hound dogs who would drag her down over ANY issue and are smelling blood on this one. Obama supports TPP and that is a reason to believe he supports Clinton. But the weight of the above for the moment seems to tip the other way--Clinton caused no end of problems for Obama and he will not try to block an FBI indictment if the FBI thinks it is warranted. (He might find himself in a Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre" situation if he did try to block it, but it may well be that he wouldn't be inclined to block it.)

I have believed that for a long time too. He came out against the Honduran military coup and she supported it as if he had no say in the matter!

All your points are spot on. I believe she was running a rogue State Dept. with secret email to conduct business for her foundation without having to worry about pesky oversight or FOIA. But her disrespect of the prez was most unseemly to boot.

She is responsible for so much destruction - and more importantly - the spread of ISIS throughout Libya. She destroyed that country despite opposition from many at the Pentagon, and from cooler heads at State.

All else before she was SOS aside, I absolutely agree her tenure as SOS was rife with cronyism, secrecy, and quid pro quo between the MIC (arms manufacturers) and dodgy countries on the human rights violator list with the Clinton Foundation the go-between receiving ungodly sums of money. She pushed Pres Obama to create a vacuum in Libya which has descended into chaos, and supports and would almost certainly order regime change in Syria if given the chance. On this point - foreign policy - I actively oppose her candidacy. I don't want her anywhere near the levers of government.

She is not to be trusted. She is poster child for absolute power corrupting absolutely.

with the pay to play are too influencial as is Clinton.
Their money has too long of a reach. The FBI will never indict on this corruption because of the people they will take down with Clinton.

...warrantless spying, when they tried to force AG Ashcroft to sign off on it, on his hospital bed. Or that's the story we've been told, and I don't have any reason to disbelieve it. Showed some guts, showed some anger, even, at Bush junta's scumbag tactics--also determination to stop it (which he did).

Of course, he didn't go after Cheney on Halliburton. He should have. That was VERY corrupt. And so much more. ($1 Billion 'missing' in Iraq. Jeez.)

You may be right. But I think we make a mistake when we view the Establishment as a monolith. It has its serious rifts, even internal wars (CIA vs Rumsfeld's Pentagon/& Cheney, for instance). There are factions in every Imperium. Could be a whole lot of people don't like Clinton, and could be she isn't really in with the in crowd, but an aspirer, sucking up to all those billionaires and bad guys. Could be she's expendable if the strongest factions want Trump (or someone else they intend to throw it to). She strikes me as someone who is very unsure of her ground, kind of like Nixon.

Is well documented beyond rw sources.

Boeing, the Saudi Royals and the list goes on.

The M$M and repugs ignore this because they too are bought by the Saudis and the MIC. They dont want to out their own corruption.

Now her supporters want to take credit for Cuba. It's in their bubble, so most of us can't comment. I guess John Kerry has been doing nothing since she left.

I hope the FBI hurry's this along.

It's actually embarrassing how more liberal media dropped the ball on being our watchdogs on matters like this. But that's the trend, not spending money on investigative journalism. Partisans get those resources, but not objective journalists who are only funded well enough to comment from the sidelines.

This suits to a T those at the top of the media, as they answer to the owners, who are big corporations.

The author helped put the S&L crooks behind bars in the 1990s as a regulator and forensic economist for the SEC. Black helped Iceland put its banksters behind bars, but for some reason, the Federal government failed to call on him for help in the great Bankster Bailout of 2008. He knows a bit about Inspector Generals and Control Fraud.